Seth Godin recently wrote a blog post about what has instantly become my new favourite word – skeuomorph.

This element of digital design has been a niggle for a while, and knowing that this is actually a documented phenomena with arguments for and against has made me feel a lot less old-fashioned about my views.

“an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material”

So, every single online ‘magazine’ that makes you use your mouse to ‘turn’ the pages is an example of obsolescence in design. (As well as being really irritating – come on, I can’t be the only one…)

Familiarity, or what Seth describes in his article as ‘analogy’, is great. It acts as a shortcut and helps us to understand and use things quicker. It’s probably the basis for what we’d call ‘intuitive design’.

But it’s only great as long as it helps or improves the design, process or service. This goes beyond simply getting buy in. It’s about progress and making things better.

I don’t believe that design should always rip up the rule-book and start from scratch; influence is a wonderful thing. Take for example the concept of biomimicry; the BBC reported a few days ago on a new plaster design which does less harm to burn victims because it is influenced by the way a parasite attaches itself.

The difference is that sort of influence takes the benefit of the source material, and works backwards to design something that preserves the benefit not the literal functionality. It uses the influence to create something that is useful and better.

Just taking the source material wholesale and using it without adaptation isn’t helpful. It’s plain lazy.

Looking at the words on a page will never bring them to life in the same way that a skilled professional can; the bits that are actually written down are just a starting point for the actor to create the character.

In particular I was struck by this paragraph:

The desire of literary critics over four centuries to solve Iago as if he were a puzzle seems to me to be missing the point. The solution is the actor. The playwright writes from the premise that the dots can’t be joined on the page, and writes with the confidence of an actor who knows that, if they are any good, his colleagues will do the rest of the job for him. Shakespeare knew what he was doing, and what he knew was that he had no idea who Iago or Cleopatra – or even Snug the Joiner – were going to turn out to be.

He also talks about (and I paraphrase) how Shakespeare wrote, as an actor himself, confident in the knowledge that the experts would be able to flesh out the details. This meant that he could be more concise – which is why Othello fits into a slim paperback and doesn’t look like War and Peace.

This got me thinking about two things:

a) 4 years of studying Shakespeare as literature may have been a little wasted…

b) and, on a more related note – isn’t this how an ideal creative brief should work?

We (planners, account people, clients, whoever) need to give creatives just enough of the detail for them to flesh the direction out and breathe life into it themselves. We don’t need the 5 chapters Tolstoy would write – just enough to be the jumping off point.

At the same time, we need to put more trust in creative people to hold up their end of the bargain, rather than trying to make sure that our own personal hobbyhorse or idea is coming through, because otherwise you are putting too many constraints on the person whose expertise you are seeking.

Would we still be watching Othello now, and thinking that it is relevant to our times and our concerns, if Shakespeare hadn’t created a loose enough framework that future generations had the freedom to create meaning and interest?

I’m starting to get that flurry of ‘birthday’ related marketing emails through at the moment (on a separate note, if they know my date of birth, why does this start a month before and finish a month after? Surely they can target better than this?)

But this is the best so far.

I’m a semi-regular customer at Space NK. I probably don’t fit their normal customer profile – it just happens to be one of the few places that stocks REN (the only moisturiser I’ve ever found that doesn’t make my skin go red, flaky, and puffer-fish-esque).

I’ve signed up to their loyalty card; the N.dulge scheme.

Of all the schemes I’ve ever signed up to, this is the best for me. And not because of the rewards – because of the CRM plan that underpins it.

Not only do I get genuinely interesting emails from them, infrequently enough to make them special. They’ve also sent me a birthday present.

Not a discount, or a reminder about why I need stuff from them – but a genuine birthday present.

A freebie. And a choice of freebie (not the one thing they are being paid to promote that month).

(Incidentally, nice simple e-mail design as well)

All I have to do is pop into my local store (which is a 5 min stroll through the park) and pick it up. And if I can’t be bothered to do that, they’ll deliver.

What a lovely piece of CRM. Especially as I know I’m not a good customer for them. This is a piece of activity that really encourages loyalty, and it’s the sort of thing other retail customers should probably take note of, because it doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going to happen when I’m in store to pick up the gift…

I walked past the same store on Saturday. And the sign was still there.

Turns out the last laugh was on me. Not only is it true, but Vision Express are heralding it as their most successful product launch ever.

However, it does beg the question – while a product launch at a bank holiday weekend does make sense, if your brand tie up is a little less obvious, or even a little less believable, does the bank holiday that includes April Fool’s Day make the best business sense?

A lot of the comment surrounding the problems that HMV faces at the moment has been really interesting – not least because it demonstrates that we are on the cusp of a new role for the digital/physical retail environment.

One comment in particular stood out for me:

Websites can never recreate the serendipity of a shop-floor […] a massive etailer might sell the same album with 78 per cent off, but it can’t chat to you about how good it is

The problem being that this on its own clearly isn’t enough. Andrea picked out the key thing this morning; when you trail so far on price on something that is essentially a commodity, it’s difficult for this sort of service to have value.

If you’re only a few pence, or even a pound more expensive, then maybe it gives a good enough reason to choose one retailer over another.

Any bid for HMV that has the support of the record labels (as it seems the Hilco bid does) may just be able to offer that. With something approaching price parity, we’ll be able to see what the new role for the high-street retail environment is as I can’t think of many other categories that have a product or service that serves as such a good test of how this role will change.

Looks like I’m not the only one thinking about information overload and the increasing demand on our attention spans.

Selfridges have created a whole space dedicated to quietness – hoping to create a more relaxing shopping experience. It’s an interesting concept – meditation pods and quiet spaces in a retail environment – and only an environment like Selfridges could pull this off.

Part of this is their ‘Quiet Shop’ where:

“Some of the world’s most recognisable brands have taken the symbolic step of removing their logos in our exclusive collection of de-branded products”

The problem being that most of them are so recognisable as brands that they haven’t de-branded simply by removing the name. In fact, the whole thing feels like a bit of a gimmick – commercialising anti-consumerism and turning these branded-yet-not products into collectors items in their own right.

Something that I’ve been wondering about recently is how much the way we receive information changes the way we react to it.

For the past couple of years we’ve seen more and more services become bitesize, 24/7 or both.

Nothing exemplifies this better than the way that we consume news. The explosion of 24 hour news channels, the way online media can support far more information and updates than any newspaper or time-dependant TV slot ever has. The rush to be there first, to report quickest.

Fast is good. It’s necessary in a world where it’s received wisdom that standing still is the same as going backwards. But what has it done to our ability to process information, or explore root causes?

It strikes me that the way that we react to things is changing. There’s constant exposition of the ‘what’, rather than truly understanding the ‘why’ or the ‘how’. Twitter is a great tool, but 140 characters doesn’t leave a lot of space to dig into the reasons behind things.

And how does this affect our ability to process stories, think critically?

Claire Tomalin, as part of her promotion for her biography of Dickens, commented:

“Children are not being educated to have prolonged attention spans and you have
to be prepared to read steadily for a Dickens novel and I think that’s a pity.”